DOI: 01.IJIT.02.01.
ACEEE Int. J. on Information Technology, Vol. 02, No. 01, March 2012
48
The Effectiveness of PIES Compared to BEM
in the Modelling of 3D Polygonal Problems Defined
by NavierLame Equations
Eugeniusz Zieniuk, Agnieszka Boltuc, Krzysztof Szerszen
University of Bialystok, Institute of Computer Science, Bialystok, Poland
Email: {ezieniuk,aboltuc,kszerszen}@ii.uwb.edu.pl
AbstractThe paper presents the ef fectiveness of the
parametric integral equation system (PIES) in solving 3D
boundary problems defined by NavierLame equations on the
example of the polygonal boundary and in comparison with
the boundary element method (BEM). Analysis was performed
using the commercial software BEASY which bases on the
BEM method, whilst in the case of PIES using an authors
software. On the basis of two examples the number of data
necessary to modeling of the boundary geometry, the number
of solved algebraic equations and the stability and accuracy
of the obtained numerical results were compared.
Index Termscomputer modeling, computer simulation,
boundary problems, parametric integral equation system
(PIES), NavierLame equation
I. INTRODUCTION
The most popular in the computer simulation of three
dimensional boundary problems are the finite (FEM) [1,13]
and boundary (BEM) [1,2,3] element methods. Their
popularity comes from the variety of applications, but also
from the wide availability of tested and therefore reliable
software [4]. Both methods are characterized by the necessity
of discretization at the stage of modeling the shape: in FEM
of the boundary and the area by finite elements, in BEM
only of the boundary using boundary elements. On the one
hand this is advantageous, because using any number of
such elements varied and complex shapes can be modeled,
however, particularly in the case of 3D issues it is very time
consuming and complicated. Another disadvantage is that
obtained by these methods solutions are discrete, except
that every time we get the number of solutions from boundary
nodes (BEM, FEM) or from area (FEM), which are useless to
us. Our previous research on solving boundary problems
resulted in the creation and development of the parametric
integral equation system (PIES) [7,8,9,10,11,12], which
eliminates disadvantages mentioned above. It is an analytical
modification of the boundary integral equation (BIE), which
is solved using BEM. BEM has already substantially reduced
the complexity of the boundary problems solving, because
of the limitation of the discretization only to the boundary, so
the next step is to completely get rid of the discretization.
This has been achieved by analytical including the shape of
the boundary in the mathematical formalism of BIE [7]. That
shape, thanks to the separation of the boundary geometry
approximation from the approximation of boundary functions,
can be defined in any manner. The most effective is the use
of parametric curves in 2D problems and parametric surfaces
in the case of threedimensional problems [5,6]. The
application of surfaces (e.g. Coons or Bzier) for 3D issues
eliminates the need for the discretization of individual faces
of the threedimensional geometry, because they can be
globally modeled with a single surface. The accuracy of PIES
solutions no longer depends on the method of modeling the
shape (if we assume that we model the exact shape using
surface patches), only on the effectiveness of the method
used for the approximation of boundary functions. Solutions
in PIES are presented in the form of approximation series with
any number of coefficients, which however means that they
are available in the continuous version. PIES has been widely
tested, taking into account the various problems modeled by
2D differential equations (Laplaces, NavierLame, Helmholtz)
[7,10,9], but also modeled using threedimensional Laplace
[8] and Helmholtz [11] equations. The results of these tests
were satisfactory, and therefore the study were extended on
more complex issues, namely the problems of elasticity.
Preliminary analysis of such problems on the example of
polygonal issues was presented in [12]. The purpose of this
study is to examine the effectiveness of the numerical
implementation of PIES for solving NavierLame equations
in the 3D area compared with the classical BEM. The authors
also tried to answer the question: can PIES be a potential
alternative to classical element method. For the implementation
of BEM the commercial software BEASY was used, whilst
in the case of PIES the authors software. Compared were: the
number of input data needed to define the shape of the
boundary, the number of solved algebraic equations and the
accuracy, stability and reliability of results. Presented tests
are beginning of research in this direction and are limited to a
very elementary form of the area.
II. PIES IN 3D ELASTICITY PROBLEMS
PIES is an analytic modification of the classical boundary
integral equations (BIE), which are characterized by the fact
that the boundary is defined generally by using the boundary
integral. BEM used to solve BIE is characterized by the
discretization of the boundary, as physical and effective way
of its definition. Such definition of the boundary has also
some disadvantages, because any minor change requires a
rediscretization. Analytical modification of BIE consisted in
defining the boundary not using the boundary integral, but
7
ACEEE Int. J. on Information Technology, Vol. 02, No. 01, March 2012
2012 ACEEE
DOI: 01.IJIT.02.01.48
with surfaces used in computer graphics. These patches have
been integrated into kernels of obtained PIES. PIES therefore
is not defined on the boundary just as BIE, but on the
parametric reference surface. Such a definition of PIES has
the advantage that changing the shape of the boundary
causes automatic adjustment of PIES to the modified shape
and does not require classical discretization. The way of
obtaining PIES for the NavierLame equations in 3D areas is
a generalization of the technique discussed in details in [10]
for 2D problems. PIES for considered in the paper problems
is presented in the following form [12]
( ) , , )} , ( ) , , , (
) , ( ) , , , ( { ) , ( 5 . 0
1 1
1
1 1 1 1
1 1
dvdw w v J w v w v w v
w v w v w v w v
j j lj
n
j
v
v
w
w
j lj l
j
j
j
j
u P
p U u

=

} }
=
(1)
where ,
1 1 l l
< <
,
1 1 l l
w w w < <
j j
< <
1
,
j j
w w w < <
1
, n l ..., 3 , 2 , 1 = and n is the number of
surfaces which define 3D geometry.
Integrands ) , , , (
1 1
w v w v
lj

U , ) , , , (
1 1
w v w v
lj

P from (1) are
presented in the following matrix form
( )
(
(
(
=
32 32 31
23 22 21
13 12 11
1 1
*
) 1 ( 16
1
, , ,
U U U
U U U
U U U
w v w v lj
U
, (2)
( )
(
(
(
=
33 32 31
23 22 21
13 12 11
2 1 1
*
) 1 ( 8
1
, , ,
P P P
P P P
P P P
w v w v lj
P
. (3)
The individual elements in the matrix (2) in the explicit form
can be presented
2
2
1
11
) 4 3 (
+ = U
, 2
2 1
12
= U
, 2
3 1
13
= U
,
2
1 2
21
= U
, 2
2
2
22
) 4 3 (
+ = U
, 2
3 2
23
= U
,
2
1 3
31
= U
, 2
2 3
32
= U
, 2
2
3
33
) 4 3 (
+ = U
,
whilst in the matrix (3) are presented by
n
P
c
c
+ =
) 3 ) 2 1 ((
2
2
1
11 ,
n
P
c
c
+ =
) 3 ) 2 1 ((
2
2
2
22 ,
, ) 3 ) 2 1 ((
2
2
3
33
n
P
c
c
+ =
1 2 2 1
2
2 1
12
) 2 1 ( 3
n n
n
P
c
c
=
,
1 3 3 1
2
3 1
13
) 2 1 ( 3
n n
n
P
c
c
=
,
2 1 1 2
2
1 2
21
) 2 1 ( 3
n n
n
P
c
c
=
,
2 3 3 2
2
3 2
23
) 2 1 ( 3
n n
n
P
c
c
=
,
3 1 1 3
2
1 3
31
) 2 1 ( 3
n n
n
P
c
c
=
,
3 2 2 3
2
2 3
32
) 2 1 ( 3
n n
n
P
c
c
=
,
where function ( ) w v J
j
, is the Jacobian,
2 2 1
, , n n n are
components of the normal vector
j
n to the segment of the
boundary marked by j , whilst
) , ( ) , (
1 1
) 1 ( ) 1 (
1
w v P w v P
l j
= , ) , ( ) , (
1 1
) 2 ( ) 2 (
2
w v P w v P
l j
= ,
) , ( ) , (
1 1
) 3 ( ) 3 (
3
w v P w v P
l j
= and  
5 . 0
2
3
2
2
2
1
+ + = ,
where ) , ( ), , ( ), , (
) 3 ( ) 2 ( ) 1 (
w v P w v P w v P
j j j
are the scalar
components of the vector surface
T
j j j
w v P w v P w v P w v )] , ( ), , ( ), , ( [ ) , (
) 3 ( ) 2 ( ) 1 (
j
= P which depends
on ) , ( w v parameters. This clause is also valid for the
surface marked by l with parameters
1 1
w v , i.e. for l j =
and parameters
1
v v = and
1
w w= .
III. NUMERICAL MODELING OF 3D ELASTICITY PROBLEMS BY
PIES
In view of the separation in PIES the approximation of the
boundary geometry from boundary functions we deal with
perfecting both these approximations independently. Thus,
we use the way of the modeling of the boundary geometry 
taken from computer graphics  which consists in modeling
the boundary by surfaces. Such modeling requires the least
number of the necessary data.
A. Modeling of the threedimensional boundary geometry
The proposed in the paper method is characterized by the
fact that in the mathematical formalism of PIES the boundary
geometry is directly included, and it can be physically defined
by a suitable connection (arbitrary) of parametric surfaces.
This strategy and its effectiveness has been tested
considering issues defined by the Laplace and Hemholtza
equations [8,11]. Both polygonal and curvilinear shapes were
tested, to define which were used respectively Coons and
Bzier surfaces. This paper, in connection with the initial stage
of research in solving 3D problems defined by NavierLame
equations, is limited to examining polygonal areas, hence the
description of modeling the boundary geometry will concern
only such cases. Modeling of polygonal areas in PIES is
performed in very simple, intuitive and effective way. Each
face of the 3D area is defined by the Coons surface, which
require posing only four its corner points. It is a minimal set
8
2012 ACEEE
DOI: 01.IJIT.02.01.
ACEEE Int. J. on Information Technology, Vol. 02, No. 01, March 2012
Figure 1. Modeling of the 3D boundary geometry:
a) in BEM, b) in PIES
Presented in Fig.1 cube was modeled: in BEM (Fig.1a) by
discretization of its faces using together 192 triangular
boundary elements, whilst in PIES (Fig.1b) using only 8 corner
points which define 6 Coons surfaces which model cube
faces. On the basis of presented figure the efficiency of the
proposed modeling technique is clearly seen, and manifests
itself in reduced workload related to the modeling of the
boundary geometry and eliminating the need for discretization.
B. Approximation of boundary functions
Besides the modeling of the boundary geometry in PIES
the second problem is its solving. As it was repeatedly
emphasized in other papers [7,8,9,10,11], the solution is
practically reduced to the approximation of boundary
functions on individual surfaces. For that reason we use
approximation series with arbitrary base functions (for 2D
problems Chebyshev, Laguerre, Legendre and Hermite
polynomials were tested). For the each surface which model
j
segment of the boundary they are presented in the
following form [11]
where
) ( ) (
,
pr
j
pr
j
p u are unknown coefficients, ) (
) (
v T
p
j
, ) (
) (
w T
r
j
are Chebyshev polynomials of the first kind, whilst M N, 
are numbers of these coefficients on the surface in two
directions (together
M N k =
).
Such technique is much more effective then re
discretization in BEM, because does not require modification
of the defined geometry and is reduced to manipulation of
two parameters N and
M
in the computer software. After
solving PIES only solutions at the boundary are obtained.
To receive the results also in the area the integral identity
should be used (Appendix A). The method of receipt is the
same as in the case of 2D problems, presented in [10].
In Appendix B, are also included formulas used to calculate
stresses in the authors software with integrands in explicit
form.
IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
In the first example we consider the unit cube presented
in Fig.1. One face of the cube is firmly fixed and the opposite
is subjected to the surface compressive force MPa p
z
1 = .
Material constants adopted for the calculation are: the
Youngs modulus
MPa E 1 =
and the Poissons ratio 3 . 0 = .
In order to define the shape of the boundary in PIES we use
rectangular Coons surfaces. Their definition is very effective
and intuitive and is limited to posing the coordinates of the
corner points of each surface that creates the boundary of
the cube. As shown in Fig. 1b, modeling of the boundary
geometry leads to the use of six Coons surfaces and posing
8 corner points of these surfaces. In the case of BEM action
would be much more laborious, because would require the
discretization of the boundary by boundary elements, whose
number would depend on the desired accuracy of the
solutions. PIES is characterized by the fact of the separation
of the approximation of the boundary geometry from
boundary functions and, therefore, modeling is carried out in
a very effective way, because with minimal number of data
required to the accurate mapping of the shape. Thus, once
defined geometry is constant throughout the process of
numerical calculations. The accuracy of the solutions in PIES
depends on the number of expressions in series which
approximate boundary functions (4a, b). It is easy to change
parameter
k
, and the values used for the solution of the
analyzed example, are as follows (for each surface separately):
16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81 and 100. The greater value the more
algebraic equations we have finally to be solved, but also the
more accurate solutions. Thus, when we choose value 100,
to obtain the final results we must solve the system with 1800
algebraic equations. The same example is also solved using
the BEASY [4], representing the BEM. In order to analyze
the accuracy and stability of solutions the boundary
geometry was modeled using a different number and various
kinds of boundary elements. Therefore, we have used
constant, linear and quadratic boundary elements in the total
number of 24, 54, 96, 150, 294, 600 and 864. The stabilization
of the results (no change to third decimal place) was obtained
using linear and square elements in the number of 600 and
more. Assuming that we take into account 600 square
elements, it is necessary to solve 6138 algebraic equations. It
is over 3 times more than in the method developed by the
authors. Table I shows the number of data needed to define
the shape from Fig. 1 using two mentioned methods by which
the obtained solutions are stable. The comparison of the
number of data is more beneficial for PIES. It comes from the
separation of the approximation of the boundary geometry
from boundary functions and from the fact that we use the
efficient way of the modeling of the boundary and the
effective method for the approximation of boundary functions.
48
9
of data necessary to the accurate definition of considered
shape. The strategy of the global modeling in PIES on the
example of the cube with a comparison to BEM is presented
in Fig.1.
ACEEE Int. J. on Information Technology, Vol. 02, No. 01, March 2012
2012 ACEEE
DOI: 01.IJIT.02.01.
TABLE I.
COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MODELING IN BEM AND PIES
Despite the benefits of PIES in the reduced number of data
for modeling and the number of algebraic equations in the
system of equations we must consider especially the
accuracy of solutions. For this reason we analyze
displacements
z
u and stresses
z x
, in two crosssections
of the considered area: , 0 = x 5 . 0 5 . 0 , 0 < < = z y and
, 0 = x 3 . 0 , 5 . 0 5 . 0 = < < z y . The results obtained by
comparison of PIES solutions with solutions achieved using
BEM (BEASY) are presented in Table II and Fig. 2.
TABLE II.
COMPARISON OF DISPLACEMENTS
z
u OBTAINED BY BEM AND PIES
As shown in Table II and Fig. 2 obtained by the proposed
method results are very similar to the solutions obtained using
BEM. It should be emphasized, however, that the results
obtained by the authors require less workload related to the
modeling (a small set of corner points) and numerical solution
(over 3 times less number of algebraic equations in the
equation system). Fig. 3 shows how the values of
displacements
z
u in the chosen point ) 4 . 0 , 0 , 0 (
become
stable, taking into account both methods and different values
of parameters responsible for improving the accuracy of the
solutions (eventually expressed as a number of algebraic
equations).
Figure 2. Comparison of normal stresses in crosssections:
a) 5 . 0 5 . 0 , 0 , 0 < < = = z y x and b) 3 . 0 , 5 . 0 5 . 0 , 0 = < < = z y x .
Figure 3. Displacements for different size of the algebraic equation
system in: a) PIES and b) BEM
As shown in Fig.3, the stabilization of solutions with the
desired accuracy in PIES took place at a much smaller number
of data necessary to solve the problem than in BEM. As
mentioned earlier it requires more than 3 times smaller system
of algebraic equations then in the classical element method.
In order to confirm the reliability of the proposed method and
its effectiveness we solve the similar problem by changing
only the boundary conditions. Thus, for the problem we
assume the same shape and dimensions, the same material
constants and the same degree of discretization in MEB and
the number of expressions in approximation series in PIES.
These assumptions caused that the data from Table 1 are
valid also for the second considered problem. This time,
however, the cube is subjected to the load in the form of the
surface force MPa p
y
1 = .
The values of solutions obtained by BEM and PIES were
analyzed again. One previously mentioned crosssection was
chosen ( 5 . 0 5 . 0 , 0 , 0 < < = = z y x ), and research was
related to functions such as: displacements
y
u and stresses
yz
. The results are presented in Fig. 4.
As in the previous example, obtained by PIES solutions are
practically the same as those obtained using BEM. So we
can consider them to be reliable, due to the fact that BEM is
the method developed through years and widely tested.
Simultaneously, the same level of accuracy of solutions was
obtained with: a smaller number of data for modeling, the lack
48
10
2012 ACEEE
DOI: 01.IJIT.02.01.
ACEEE Int. J. on Information Technology, Vol. 02, No. 01, March 2012
48
of need for discretization the boundary, a smaller number of
equations in the final system of algebraic equations and
possibility for obtaining solutions at any point on the
boundary and in the domain, without necessity of maintaining
the results from all boundary nodes.
Figure 4. Displacements and stresses obtained by BEM and PIES in
the chosen crosssection
CONCLUSIONS
The paper presents the efficiency of PIES in solving three
dimensional polygonal boundary problems defined by Navier
Lame equations in comparison to the classic BEM represented
by BEASY software. Obtained by PIES solutions (both
displacements and stresses) are characterized by high
accuracy in comparison with the element method, but also
are obtained in a much more efficient way. It was shown that
the proposed approach requires fewer data to model the
boundary geometry, the system with fewer number of
equations and unknowns is solved and does not require to
maintain redundant solutions collected from all grid nodes,
but it is possible to obtain them at any point of the boundary
or area. The authors are aware of the fact that the analyzed
example is very basic, but getting even these results require
intensive workload. The reliability of obtained results is
encouraging to generalize the method to more complex shapes
of areas.
APPENDIX A DISPLACEMENTS IN A DOMAIN
A modified integral identity for displacements takes the
following form
( ) . , ) , ( ) , (
) , ( ) , , (
{ ) (
1
1 1
dw d w v J w ,w
w w
j j
n
j
w
w
j j
j
j
j
j
u x P
p x U u
j

=

} }
= x
(5)
Integrands from (5) are presented by
( )
(
(
(
=

33 32 31
23 22 21
13 12 11
) 1 ( 16
1
, ,
U U U
U U U
U U U
r
w v
j
x U
, (6)
( )
(
(
(
=

33 32 31
23 22 21
13 12 11
2
) 1 ( 8
1
, ,
P P P
P P P
P P P
r
w v
j
x P
. (7)
Individual elements of the matrix (6) in explicit form can be
represented
2
2
1
11
) 4 3 (
r
r
U
+ = ,
2
2 1
12
r
r r
U
= ,
2
3 1
13
r
r r
U
= ,
2
1 2
21
r
r r
U
= ,
2
2
2
22
) 4 3 (
r
r
U
+ = ,
2
3 2
23
r
r r
U
= ,
2
1 3
31
r
r r
U
= ,
2
2 3
32
r
r r
U
= ,
2
2
3
33
) 4 3 (
r
r
U
+ = ,
whilst from the matrix (7) take the following forms
n
r
r
r
B P
c
c
+ =
) 3 (
2
2
1
11
, , ) 3 (
2
2
2
22
n
r
r
r
B P
c
c
+ =
n
r
r
r
B P
c
c
+ =
) 3 (
2
2
3
33
,
r
n r n r
B
r
r r
A P
1 2 2 1
2
2 1
12
=
,
r
n r n r
B
r
r r
A P
1 3 3 1
2
3 1
13
=
r
n r n r
B
r
r r
A P
2 1 1 2
2
1 2
21
=
r
n r n r
B
r
r r
A P
2 3 3 2
2
3 2
23
=
,
r
n r n r
B
r
r r
A P
3 1 1 3
2
1 3
31
=
,
r
n r n r
B
r
r r
A P
3 2 2 3
2
2 3
32
=
,
where
n
r
A
c
c
=
3
, ) 2 1 ( = B and
1
) 1 (
1
) , ( x w v P r
j
=
,
2
) 2 (
2
) , ( x w v P r
j
=
,
3
) 3 (
3
) , ( x w v P r
j
=
,  
5 . 0
2
3
2
2
2
1
r r r r
+ + = ,
whilst { }
3 2 1
x , x , x x .
APPENDIX B STRESSES IN A DOMAIN
In order to obtain stress components we should use the
following expression
( ) , , )} , ( ) , (
) , ( ) , , (
{ ) (
1
1 1
dw d w v J w ,w
w w
j j
n
j
w
w
j j
j
j
j
j
u x S
p x D
j

=

} }
= x
(8)
( )
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
=

333 332 331
323 322 321
313 312 311
233 232 231
223 222 221
213 212 211
133 132 131
123 122 121
113 112 111
2
) 1 ( 8
, ,
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
r
G
w v
j
x D
where integrands from (8) can be expressed
(9)
11
ACEEE Int. J. on Information Technology, Vol. 02, No. 01, March 2012
2012 ACEEE
DOI: 01.IJIT.02.01.
( )
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
=

333 332 331
323 322 321
313 312 311
233 232 231
223 222 221
213 212 211
133 132 131
123 122 121
113 112 111
3
) 1 ( 4
, ,
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
S S S
r
G
w v
j
x S
. (10)
Elements of the matrix (9) in explicit form can be presented
3
1 1 111
3
r r B D
+ = ,
2
2
1 2 112
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
3
2
1 3 113
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
2
2
1 2 121
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
2
2 1 1 122
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
3 2 1 123
3
r r r D
= ,
3
2
1 3 131
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
2 3 1 132
3
r r r D
= ,
2
3 1 1 133
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
2
1 2 2 211
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
1
2
2 1 212
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
3 1 2 213
3
r r r D
= ,
1
2
2 1 221
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
3
2 2 222
3
r r B D
+ = ,
3
2
2 3 223
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
1 3 2 231
3
r r r D
= ,
3
2
2 3 232
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
2
3 2 2 233
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
2
1 3 3 311
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
2 1 3 312
3
r r r D
= ,
1
2
3 1 313
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
1 2 3 321
3
r r r D
= ,
2
2 3 3 322
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
2
2
3 2 323
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
1
2
3 1 331
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
2
2
3 2 332
3
r r r B D
+ = ,
3
3 3 333
3
r r B D
+ = ,
whilst in the matrix (10) can be presented by
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is funded by resources for science in the years
20102013 as a research project.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Ameen, Computational elasticity. Harrow, U.K.: Alpha
Science International Ltd., 2005.
[2] P.K. Banerjee, R. Butterfield, Boundary element methods in
engineering science. London: Mc GrawHill, 1981.
[3] C. A. Brebbia, J. C. F. Telles, L. C. Wrobel, Boundary element
techniques, theory and applications in engineering. New York:
Springer, 1984.
[4] Boundary Element Analysis System (BEASY). Computational
Mechanics Ltd. Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton, UK.
[5] G. Farin, Curves and surfaces for computer aided geometric
design. San Diego: Academic Press Inc., 1990.
[6] J. Foley, A. van Dam, S. Feiner, J. Hughes, R. Phillips,
Introduction to computer graphics. AddisonWesley, 1994.
[7] E. Zieniuk, Potential problems with polygonal boundaries
by a BEM with parametric linear functions, Engineering Analysis
with Boundary Elements, vol. 25, pp.185190, 2001.
[8] E. Zieniuk, K. Szerszen, Linear Coons surfaces in modeling
of polygonal domains in 3D boundary value problems defined by
Laplaces equation, Archiwum Informatyki Teoretycznej i
Stosowanej, vol. 17/2, pp. 127142, 2005, in polish.
[9] E. Zieniuk, A. Boltuc, Bezier curves in the modeling of
boundary problems defined by Helmholtz equation, Journal of
Computational Acoustics, vol. 14(3), pp. 115, 2006.
[10] E. Zieniuk, A. Boltuc, Nonelement method of solving 2D
boundary problems defined on polygonal domains modeled by
Navier equation, International Journal of Solids and Structures,
vol. 43, pp. 79397958, 2006.
[11] E. Zieniuk, K. Szerszen, Triangular Bzier patches in
modelling smooth boundary surface in exterior Helmholtz problems
solved by PIES, Archives of Acoustics, vol. 1 (34), pp. 111,
2009.
[12] E. Zieniuk, K. Szerszen, A. Boltuc, PIES for solving three
dimensional boundary value problems modeled by NavierLame
equations in polygonal domains, Modelowanie inzynierskie, under
review.
[13] O. Zienkiewicz, The finite element methods. London: McGraw
Hill, 1977.
48
12
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.